Divorce and Remarriage - What happens to Guilty?

[foreverafter]

"You do realize that people can repent and through the atonement be made clean of past wrongs like adultery or abuse?

So you think that McConkie and Oaks are dead wrong.......and you are right?

People of course can repent from adultery & abuse but to do so they must make serious restitution & return to the injured spouse & make things right again, if their spouse wants them back. If the innocent spouse doesnt want them back & they truely repent, then they may be able to remarry like you say.

All I am saying about McConkie & Oaks is that they say things completely opposite what most all other prophets do about divorce. I do have lots of quotes that teach what I am saying but I don't know if it's ok to post them on here, because of copyright laws. But I would suggest to anyone to study the teachings of Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, Pres. Benson, Pres. Hinckley, Pres. Kimball, James E. Talmage, Joseph F. Smith for starters. They understood marriage & divorce very well.

[Vort]

I am not aware of any president that initiated a divorce. The only divorce I know of with a president was Brigham Young and Fawn Broty (sorry about the spelling). Dispite the fact that Fawn had broken her covenants it was still her and not Brigham that forced the devorce.

Fawn Brodie was a fairly well-known "psychobiographer" whose main claim to fame in LDS circles is her infamous biography of Joseph Smith, "No Man Knows My History".

Brigham Young was divorced by his wife Ann Eliza Webb, a divorcée with two children whom President Young married, apparently to provide for her. She left him and wrote her autobiography, "Wife No. 19". Her book was well-received and added greatly to the popular anti-Mormon sentiments of the day. (It's a rather absurd and laughable tale, available for perusal in its entirety at an antiMormon website.) Her two sons, when adults, broke with her and never contacted her again. She revised her "autobiography" to no acclaim, and died in obscurity.

[Vort]

All I am saying about McConkie & Oaks is that they say things completely opposite what most all other prophets do about divorce.

Sister Foreverafter, I respect your sincerity, but you are mistaken. "McConkie & Oaks" (sounds like a law firm) were and are apostles, indeed prophets. Were they to preach falsehoods, you may rest assured that the First Presidency would correct their doctrine. The fact is that the kingdom of God works exactly as Elders McConkie and Oaks have described. Their words reflect present reality. That's how it's done.

If a bishop or stake president knows and has proof that a person is committing adultery, the leader will not issue that person a temple recommend, no matter what that person claims. If divorce and subsequent remarriage were indeed considered adultery by God, then anyone who divorced and remarried (public acts which cannot be hidden) would have his or her temple recommend revoked immediately. It is simply false to say that they are committing adultery as known to the public, but that the leaders of the Church can't do anything because they say they are not adulterous.

[bert10]

Basically it comes down to what God says to that person. For only God can judge all aspects of the thing correctly.

However, as the law before God stands....a woman who initiate a divorce on this earth.....may or may not be given a Spiritual divorce by God. And if she remarries without receiving a Spiritual divorce...She does live in a adultery relationship.

Both the man and the woman in their marriage are to overcome all obstacles by faith. Not say...I give so let us start anew with another wife or husband.

God has clearly said....What God has joined let no man put asunder. Not even a Pastor, Priest or a judge of the land has this power to put asunder what God has joined. Their decree are only valid over the flesh.

We are to forgive our spouse if we are expected ourselves to be forgiven by the Lord for our breaches of the Marital Covenant we have with Him. By as much as we forgive so shall we be forgiven by God. And he who forgives much shall have much be forgiven by God.

So who is justified before God in divorcing their Spouse? Very very few. Also putting away one's wife is not a Divorce.

Now if a woman does divorce a man without just cause by the law of men....even though God has not given that man a Spiritual divorce...He can allow that man to marry another woman..for in history God has allowed some men to have more than one wife. Whenever God has given permission.

-----------------------------

Because of the high rate of divorces and re-marriage.

I tell you the truth..today...we are an Adulterous Generation both in the flesh and Spiritually.

In the millennium everyone shall be taught Hope, Faith and unconditional Love and there shall be no divorces.

Peace be unto you

bert10

People of course can repent from adultery & abuse but to do so they must make serious restitution & return to the injured spouse & make things right again, if their spouse wants them back. If the innocent spouse doesnt want them back & they truely repent, then they may be able to remarry like you say.

All I am saying about McConkie & Oaks is that they say things completely opposite what most all other prophets do about divorce. I do have lots of quotes that teach what I am saying but I don't know if it's ok to post them on here, because of copyright laws. But I would suggest to anyone to study the teachings of Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, Pres. Benson, Pres. Hinckley, Pres. Kimball, James E. Talmage, Joseph F. Smith for starters. They understood marriage & divorce very well.

Edited March 1, 2009 by bert10

[prisonchaplain]

God has clearly said....What God has joined let no man put asunder. Not even a Pastor, Priest or a judge of the land has this power to put asunder what God has joined. Their decree are only valid over the flesh.

We are to forgive our spouse if we are expected ourselves to be forgiven by the Lord for our breaches of the Marital Covenant we have with Him. By as much as we forgive so shall we be forgiven by God. And he who forgives much shall have much be forgiven by God.

So who is justified before God in divorcing their Spouse? Very very few. Also putting away one's wife is not a Divorce.

Forgiveness does not equal status quo ante. Putting away one's spouse is indeed divorce, and if there is adultery in marriage, that marriage contract has already been rent. The victim is free to divorce and remarry. Forgiveness is quite different from trust. It means the victims gives the adulterer over to God, no longer bearing personal judgment, but leaving it into God's hands.

Now, if the offense was a one-time event, perhaps during a particularly difficult separation, or some other especially stressful time, the adulterer is truly, deeply, and convincingly repentent, then, of course, the victim may, and is encouraged to, reconcile.

On the other hand, if the adulterer is a serial offender, is basically sorry s/he got caught, and gives little evidence of future improvement, then there is absolutely no condemnation upon the victim for following through with a divorce.

[bert10]

Prison Chaplain my knowledge on marriages and divorces differ from yours. I find that the teaching that you are putting down is from the blind. I realize that the teachings that I am putting down is going to be rejected. And it is normal that men reject these teachings. Also - Putting away one's wife is not necessarily divorce.

For example Bilhah was put away by Jacob...and yet she was still supported by Jacob and shared in the life of the Camp in all things except Jacob could not be intimate with her again because of what happened with Reuben. The ancients understood once married you remained married. Bilhah who was exceedingly beautiful was not left to fend for herself nor left for another man to marry.....

Abraham put away Hagar..and yet Abraham did go and visit with her each year. For Esau was still his son and deserved to be taught and supported by Abraham.

If men/women are justified for divorcing for each other then God would be justified in annulling the Everlasting Covenant of Marriage of the Father to us each and every time a man has put his own Idol before God which is committing spirtual adultery. If this were the case who would be left fit to enter into heaven?

Understand that God will forgive men by as much as men forgive those who injure them. And they who forgive much shall be much forgiven in turn.

I did not say that a Separation [Putting away] is not out of the question. A separation is not the same as divorce. It allow two people to live singly. I did not say that the marital covenant between a man and a wife could not be changed.

What God as joined together let not man put assunder.

As for continuous adultery....There will come a time when it is "GOD WHO SHALL SAY ENOUGH" and render judgment and this is when a man or a woman shall be justified in seeking a divorce.

P/S in a Divorce or Separation the responsibilty of the Mother and of the Father do not changes towards each other or in the case of Children.

In a divorce or separation the Husband/Father is still 100% responsible for the physical well being of his ex-spouse and children. And he is still responsible to a large degree to the Spiritual welfare of his children.

Also be advised when the Lord says..I have put away your sins...it does not mean that they are fogiven. For when the Lord forgives sins...He says so and uses the correct words. Putting away one's sin is what God does when He deals with a man who has not time to repent fully..... so that the sins of that man do not come into his sight.

Peace be unto you

bert10

Edited March 2, 2009 by bert10

[Traveler]

....

Forgiveness is quite different from trust. It means the victims gives the adulterer over to God, no longer bearing personal judgment, but leaving it into God's hands.

.....

I use to believe this – that we could just turn offenders over to G-d and let him grind them to pieces while we sit innocently on the sidelines and say nothing. Justice is about offenders getting what they deserve.

There are two problems:

The first problem is arrogance that bad people (bad people are defined in such a way that I am never the bad guy – it must always be someone else) will get what they deserve but me and my friends will not get what we actually deserve. We will get what we do not deserve. Then we begin to make up reasons why we will skip what we deserve because in some way we are better than “THEM” – so we really do deserve something better. We did not commit adultery that proves we are better or greater value to – even to G-d because he will punish them - because they are vermin and deserve punishment.

This thinking poisons the soul and excuses us from having compassion because compassion is not form “THEM”. It allows us to turn our back on THEM because THEY are damaged goods and there is nothing of real value to be salvaged from their ruined lives. We can rejoice and celebrate their eternal sorrow. Yes; we say we love them and forgive them but our hearts prepare to delight in their eternal sorrow. And thus our hearts become dark.

The second problem is that we never really forgive. We robe ourselves of that great opportunity to allow the sacrifice and suffering of Christ to pay for their sins in our eyes. We refuse to pray from our very being that G-d forgive them because we have come to believe such forgiveness is impossible – especially for G-d. Now there is an excuse for them. Because we (the true sheep of the fold) never forgave them how could they ever return and enjoy society with us? They are not lost sheep to be sought out they are sheep to be cast off to hell.

They would then have every right to hate us, despise us and blame us for a greater evil for they would have returned had we but let them.

If anyone wants to be forgiven let them be forgiven. This is the only way that we can separate out those that do not want to be forgiven from those that do. Let us pray that ever man and woman find what their heart desires. Let those that desire to live adultery so live. Let those that desire to live without adultery also so live. If someone wants to live and marry according to G-d’s eternal law – let them so learn and live. Let us be the “ADVOCATE” of all. Let us not be the “ACCUSER” of anyone.

Jesus Christ is the advocate – let us take upon our self his name.

Satan is the accuser – let us not take upon our self his name or any name like it.

If there is another name by which we can be known as neither advocate nor accuser – I do not know it someone will have to explain that name to me. Perhaps that name is “Luke warm”.

The Traveler

Edited March 2, 2009 by Traveler

[Traveler]

The question of this thread was in a divorce, what happens to the guilty? May I amend that question so we can better understand and simply ask?

What happens to the unrepentant?

We are all guilty to some degree or another and perhaps if all truth and thoughts were known every married person would have cause to divorce their spouse. Therefore, it is not the cause of justification that should concern us in divorce or in a marriage struggling to survive blame or other shortcomings but the cause of repentance that needs to inspire us all to ask forgiveness of our G-d and our spouses.

Maybe it is not understanding the need to repent and seek forgiveness but to give blame that is the cause of the curent rise in divorce among us all - regardless of our religion.

The Traveler

Edited March 3, 2009 by Traveler

[bert10]

Quite right traveler, what happens to the unrepentant?....to continue on....A marriage tie is sacred and it is made in heaven. The chain that binds two souls in this manner cannot be severed by man.

Now I will add some more teaching that will disconfit many this pertains to those who have ears by which they can hear. When a man a woman marry in the Love of flesh and is presided over by a priest...the marriage is an adulterous relationship and the priest, pastor whatever who has sanctioned such a union share in its guilt.

What happens to the guilty or they who do not repent?....if it is the husband that cast out his wife and causes his wife to marry another....Then her sins in a large degree is added to his sins.

If the wife does this without due cause...then her sins are her own.

Repentance in part means to undo the injury...we have caused to another.

The cost of broken marriages weighs both the body of flesh and the Spirit. There is usually no good ending spiritually in a divorce.

In the case of Separation where the man and the woman live singly andchaste....it can be repaired with mighty faith unto repentance. Because if either one finds unconditional Love which is the pure love of Christ which spouse can resist and not forgive a person finding such a love?

Peace Be unto you

bert10

[foreverafter]

if either one finds unconditional Love which is the pure love of Christ which spouse can resist and not forgive a person finding such a love?

Truer words were never spoken. Thank you for posting that bert. True Love really does conquer all. If not in this life, then the next, the errant spouse will repent & return because of such a love.

It only takes one spouse - with Unconditional Love - to save a marriage. Without this love, it's impossible for a marriage to last. With True Love it's impossible for it to fail.

[bert10]

Well Foreverafter...human nature is such that it wants to be loved and accepted exactly for what we are with no expectations of change or pressure being put on us.

This is just one of the perks in living with person who has found "Unconditional Love." also a person who has "unconditional Love" cannot ever withdraw his love any more than God can. A spouse can burn the supper and it does not matter all that much...even withdraw marital rights...the man will still love because his love is not build on what his wife does for him. So his peace is much more secure and it will take much indeed to take that peace away. And so in this manner all the cracks and windows, and doors by which Satan usually enters and sows discords, contentions, anger, jealousy, envy are closed in his his face and peace shall be in that home. That is how we render Satan powerless and our peace and love can grow...it is with unconditonal love which is taught to men as Charity in the NT.

And this is a law...."that all men become which he seeks to interpret." Such a man who in time becomes full to the brim with this love...if he looks in the mirror...he will no longer see his face but the face of God who said.....I am Love.

Peace be unto you

bert10

Edited March 3, 2009 by bert10

[Vort]

It only takes one spouse - with Unconditional Love - to save a marriage. Without this love, it's impossible for a marriage to last. With True Love it's impossible for it to fail.

There is no such thing as "unconditional love".

[Moksha]

There is no such thing as "unconditional love".

Tell that to God.

[Vort]

There is no such thing as "unconditional love".

Tell that to God.

Why would I tell God what he already knows?

[prisonchaplain]

Bert's appeal to unconditional love is good and blessed, when applied to my relationship with God. And it's God who does the unconditional loving.

IMHO, it is a warped and unrighteous approach to expect or demand unconditional love from one's spouse. Adultery? Abuse? Child molestation? Abandonment? Drug use around the children? These things do and must garner separation at a minimum, and in many cases may lead to divorce. And, the victim is a victim. S/he ought not to be victimized twice by being accused of lacking in "unconditional love." In fact, for her kids sake, as well as for her own place in God's plan, the best she might do is to allow the guilty leave, so that she might live in peace, as the Heavenly Father intended.

[Traveler]

Bert's appeal to unconditional love is good and blessed, when applied to my relationship with God. And it's God who does the unconditional loving.

IMHO, it is a warped and unrighteous approach to expect or demand unconditional love from one's spouse. Adultery? Abuse? Child molestation? Abandonment? Drug use around the children? These things do and must garner separation at a minimum, and in many cases may lead to divorce. And, the victim is a victim. S/he ought not to be victimized twice by being accused of lacking in "unconditional love." In fact, for her kids sake, as well as for her own place in God's plan, the best she might do is to allow the guilty leave, so that she might live in peace, as the Heavenly Father intended.

Your words and concepts are always of such grand interest to me. Why in the example of G-d is man so different? Many times I have tried to bridge the distinction in covenant with G-d and the covenant of marriage. Love is both an accentual and necessary element in eternal divine covenant.

Many think that divorce is necessary when love is lost from the basic binding of covenant. However, as you have pointed out G-d’s love is unconditional. But even with all his unconditional love G-d does not maintain the binding of his covenants with force nor is his love ended when a covenant is broken. His love is unconditional but the binding of his covenants is not unconditional.

You and I have discussed the conditions necessary for establishing divine covenants between G-d and man in the past. I still maintain that such covenant requires more than believing or accepting Christ. Loyalty in trial is also a condition as much with G-d as it is in marriage. Loyalty being the opposite of adultery. And so we understand that Idolatry in its many forms is adultery. But it is never G-d that has abandoned the idolatrous but the idolatrous that has divorced and abandoned G-d.

So my question is – how many times will G-d allow a sinner to come back. And how many times will G-d search in the wilderness for a lost sheep? When is the adulterous abandoned by G-d? I believe the answer is never but also he does not search for a lost sheep to force it back into the fold but to call to the sheep to return.

And so in the example of G-d should not we all call for the return and those that come back by covenant accept without respect of person? As I see – this question is not concerning guilt but a question of what really is establishing covenant with G-d? How does a sinner make known that they have accepted G-d’s covenant?

The Traveler

Edited March 6, 2009 by Traveler

[Justice]

I really do believe in what has been alluded to already here.

There is a night and day difference between marriage ordained of God and marriage performed without authority.

PC, to me, the difference isn't about the "timing" of the marriage in relation to one's conversion, but about the type of covenant one makes.

Some marriage is "till death do you part." Even though it's NOT the marriage intended by God, or sanctioned by God, he expects you to honor the commitment you make. Unless a marriage is performed by one holding priesthood power given and authorized by God, God will not honor that marriage in the eternities. It was not entered into with His sanction, authorized by His servants.

Now, I'm implying that any marriage performed outside of the LDS Church will NOT be sanctioned by God, whether performed before or after they join your church.

Don't get wrinkled up yet, there's more...

:)

I have the Priesthood ordained by God, as a member of His Church. But, I cannot perform a wedding because I am not authorized. Until I become a bishop, He will not authorize me to perform marriages.

Even still, if a bishop in the LDS Church performs a marriage in His Church, outside of the temple (which is the only place keys are held to marriage for time and eternity), then even though that bishop is an authorized servant performing an authorized marriage, and honored by the Church, God will still NOT honor that marraige for eternity.

So, it not JUST your marriages performed outside the temple, or any other churches marriages performed outside the temple, that we believe will not last past death, but EVEN ours.

If you consider this in relation to Paul's words, his message becomes clearer.

In the LDS Church, if an eternal marriage is performed, in the proper place, and by the proper person, then the First Presidency (prophet) must approve the undoing of that bond. And, that bond is only even undone if someone chooses to seal themselves to another for time and eternity. This accounts for the wording Paul used. It is not an easy or fast process.

So, I don't think Paul was too concerned with "what man has joined together," but with what "God has joined together." And, I believe in this instance, he was speaking about one who HAD been married for time and eternity. The two marriages are different even in our Church.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Justice

[Vort]

Now, I'm implying that any marriage performed outside of the LDS Church will NOT be sanctioned by God, whether performed before or after they join your church.

I disagree. An otherwise-worthy person living in a normal marriage relationship will be welcomed into the waters of baptism with enthusiasm. An otherwise-worthy person living in a homosexual or other non-normal-marriage relationship, even if it's legally recognized, will not be baptized. I'd say that's a pretty obvious divine sanction of marriage, even the non-temple, non-sealing type.

[Vort]

However, as you have pointed out G-d’s love is unconditional.

Does this statement have any meaning? If so, please explain. I can't find any.

Why do we care that God "loves" us? What does that mean? Why, it means that he has blessings in store for us that he gives us as we ready ourselves for them. That's why we care. And, of course, those blessings -- that "love" -- is and are conditional.

What blessings does God have in store for Satan?

Does that mean that God no longer loves Satan?

In what sense does God "unconditionally love" Satan? How does that so-called "love" have any positive effect on Satan, or on God, or on anyone else?

"While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional." -- Elder Russell M. Nelson

[bytor2112]

I tend to think God loves us unconditionally. Does he love the wayward person, living a life of sin and transgression? Surely, he does or he would not bless us all so very much. We are his children and just as Enoch witnessed him weeping for his children, surely he weeps for us know.

Will he reward us unconditionally? No. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ. We must all repent or suffer for our own sins, suffer as Christ suffered.

[Justice]

I disagree. An otherwise-worthy person living in a normal marriage relationship will be welcomed into the waters of baptism with enthusiasm. An otherwise-worthy person living in a homosexual or other non-normal-marriage relationship, even if it's legally recognized, will not be baptized. I'd say that's a pretty obvious divine sanction of marriage, even the non-temple, non-sealing type.

I meant God would not honor that marriage beyond motality. I did not mean to imply they could not be baptized.

As I said, even marriages performed by LDS Bishops outside the temple will disolve after death.

[Moksha]

You do realize that people can repent and through the atonement be made clean of past wrongs like adultery or abuse? ...Your comments suggest that the atonement is limited in it's effect and it isn't.

Excellent points! The Atonement has such far reaching meaning that it is futile for us to try to limit it. Instead we should accept God's love and forgiveness and filter our own pronouncements with love. Eh?

[prisonchaplain]

Your words and concepts are always of such grand interest to me. Why in the example of G-d is man so different? Many times I have tried to bridge the distinction in covenant with G-d and the covenant of marriage. Love is both an accentual and necessary element in eternal divine covenant.

You are asking a big-picture question--how the marriage covenant and the atonement covenant differ--or should they? IMHO the are absolutely different. The marriage covenant is between two of God's creations--made before him, to be sure, but nevertheless, between each other. Two equal beings commiting, contractually, to one another--either until death or for eternity.

Jesus says that should one partner be unfaithful to the other, that is a breaking of the covenant. It is the one case he mentions that allows for divorce. Paul mentions another--abandonment. If one partner flat-out leaves, the other is not bound. That contract is broken as well.

The atonement is a type of covenant between two UNEQUALS. The King provides 99%, the subject 1% (to use numbers). Even if we totally fail in our 1% duties, the King can cover us, and will do so if we but ask in sincerity.

To use a cliche, imho you are comparing apples and oranges.

Many think that divorce is necessary when love is lost from the basic binding of covenant. However, as you have pointed out G-d’s love is unconditional. But even with all his unconditional love G-d does not maintain the binding of his covenants with force nor is his love ended when a covenant is broken. His love is unconditional but the binding of his covenants is not unconditional.

You and I have discussed the conditions necessary for establishing divine covenants between G-d and man in the past. I still maintain that such covenant requires more than believing or accepting Christ. Loyalty in trial is also a condition as much with G-d as it is in marriage. Loyalty being the opposite of adultery. And so we understand that Idolatry in its many forms is adultery. But it is never G-d that has abandoned the idolatrous but the idolatrous that has divorced and abandoned G-d.

So my question is – how many times will G-d allow a sinner to come back. And how many times will G-d search in the wilderness for a lost sheep? When is the adulterous abandoned by G-d? I believe the answer is never but also he does not search for a lost sheep to force it back into the fold but to call to the sheep to return.

And so in the example of G-d should not we all call for the return and those that come back by covenant accept without respect of person? As I see – this question is not concerning guilt but a question of what really is establishing covenant with G-d? How does a sinner make known that they have accepted G-d’s covenant?

The Traveler

Well, perhaps we are not so far off. Consider that technically lust is adultery (Jesus said so), and yet we surely do not condone divorce based on a partner having lusted. Further, in the case of a single infidelity, especially if under trying circumstances, and when accompanied by sincere and passionate repentence, most would counsel reconciliation. But, if the adulterer is not repententant, is the offended partner supposed to simply seperate, and remain celibate, pining for the day when the wayward one might come around? No, this is not the 70X7 scenario--otherwise, Jesus would not have made this an exception to his no-divorce decree.

Likewise with the abandoned one. How many years should she wait? The man said he wasn't coming back...could no longer stand him? Must she pine for reconcilation, in celibacy, for decades?

On the other hand, I do agree that neither a single instance of adultery, nor a thoughtless running off for a few days should necessarily be treated as a "Get Out of Marriage Free" card.

[Vort]

The marriage covenant is between two of God's creations--made before him, to be sure, but nevertheless, between each other. Two equal beings commiting, contractually, to one another--either until death or for eternity.

Not so, at least not in LDS theology. The marital covenant I made along with my wife was made to God. She and I each covenanted with God, not with each other, for our marriage.

Jesus says that should one partner be unfaithful to the other, that is a breaking of the covenant. It is the one case he mentions that allows for divorce. Paul mentions another--abandonment. If one partner flat-out leaves, the other is not bound. That contract is broken as well. [...] On the other hand, I do agree that neither a single instance of adultery, nor a thoughtless running off for a few days should necessarily be treated as a "Get Out of Marriage Free" card.

So how does a Biblical "literalist"** decide when a condition (adultery, abandonment) has been fulfilled "egregiously enough" that the divorce is allowed? This is a non-problem in LDS circles, of course; but if the written Bible (in English translation, I presume) is the highest authority, how is the judgment justified?

** I disagree with the term, but you know what I mean.

[MichaelJ]

I don't understand, I thought the Bible taught there will be no marriage in Heaven.

When Jesus answered in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married multiple times in her life —whom would she be married to in heaven (Matthew 22:23-30)

...He responded "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Surely Jesus spoke the truth here didn't He?